On July 2, while Americans were celebrating a long Independence Day weekend, the Secret Service discovered that someone left some cocaine in the West Wing of the White House.
Despite being monitored with 24-hour surveillance by more cameras than in your entire town or city, after a full investigation, the Secret Service (backed by FBI resources) couldn't say who possessed the cocaine or how it got there.
Really? Not a clue? Not a single scrap of DNA, fingerprint evidence or video could lead them to even a small pool of suspects?
And there seems to be an even more important detail and discrepancy about where the cocaine was found.
The BBC reported: "The small plastic bag used to contain the drugs was discovered in an area that can be accessed by members of the public, and where mobile phones and other personal devices are stored before entering the White House."
Obviously, that report leaves the impression the drug owner could have been a touring visitor.
However, NPR pointed to a much-more questionable origin: "The cocaine was found on July 2 in a vestibule off the lobby of a lower-level West Wing entrance, stashed in a cubbyhole near the Situation Room, where officials store cellphones during meetings."
"Stashed in a cubbyhole near the Situation Room, where officials store cellphones during meetings"? "Officials"?
For those who didn't know, the Situation Room is a 5,525-square-foot conference room and intelligence management center in the basement of the West Wing of the White House.
That makes me even more concerned! If the Secret Service didn't have any clear surveillance where officials (or anyone else) store personal items next to the Situation Room, what else could be hid there undetected?
"The White House is supposed to be the most secure residence in the world, but today Secret Service officials failed to answer basic questions or provide any meaningful information related to security failures and cocaine being found at the White House," said House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky.
And did you know this is the third time in just a couple of years that they found drugs in the Biden White House? A third time. They also found cannabis twice last year. And can you imagine what we haven't heard about?
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Thursday about the Secret Service not having a clue where the cocaine came from: "There is no equal justice. Anything revolving around 'Biden, Inc.' gets treated different than any other American, and that's got to stop."
Of course, the mainstream media discussed the discovery of the cocaine in the White House like it presented no real problem. Can you imagine what liberal news segments and commentary would look like if this happened under President Trump's watch?
The whole cocaine debacle made me wonder: Does it really even matter to anyone in the Biden administration that an illegal narcotic was found at the White House? Does it really even matter that someone was likely high on cocaine while in the West Wing near (in?) the Situation Room?
Does right or wrong come into play here, or is it just another matter of being legal or illegal?
Remember when drugs used to be wrong? Remember when my friend first lady Nancy Reagan led the national campaign: "Just say no"?
According to The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, "Political ethics (sometimes called political morality or public ethics) is the practice of making moral judgments about political action, and the study of that practice." Is that practice dead?
According to a 2022 Pew Research (PR) poll, most Americans believe the United States Congress is morally corrupt. Sixty-three percent of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents, told pollsters they believe the House and Senate are both immoral.
And you know public sentiment about the morality of those occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Actually, those same PR polls show one's views of the White House's morality all depends upon your party affiliation.
To be fair, let me demonstrate how this selective partisan morality works both sides of the aisle by also using a popular Republican politician.
I'm not weighing in (yet) to the 2024 presidential race. And I'm not making a pro or anti comment here on any politician. I'm simply discussing the issue of morality and politics, and Republicans can be just as bad as Democrats when it comes to devaluing morality.
In 2016, then presidential candidate Donald Trump boasted that he could shoot someone in the middle of a crowded street without it affecting his popularity.
His exact words were: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue [New York] and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," he said. "It's, like, incredible."
As he made those comments, he pointed directly at a camera recording the speech and imitated pulling a trigger on a gun.
While Trump was clearly using hyperbole, his underlying political point was valid about those on the right and, quite frankly, the left, too: We don't really have a huge issue with a politician's moral conduct as long as they fight for us or our concerns.
The question is this: Can the immoral conduct of a candidate sway you from voting from him or her? How bad is bad enough? Or is an election now just about voting in the man or woman who will most effectively fight for you, your values and your political positions?
What's additionally strange is this: Once upon a time, it was evangelical Christians and others on the far right who would uphold a high(er?) moral standard and stressed the point that character counted. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
"That's what a new PRRI/Brookings poll says. In 2011, 30% of white evangelicals said that 'an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.' Now, 72% say so – a far bigger swing than other religious groups the poll studied," NPR reported.
In the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was president, Jerry Falwell and his "Moral Majority" were heresy hunters. Character mattered. Political and personal corruption had to be well hidden, or politicians' sins would find them out, and keep or boot them out.
Back then, politicians were deemed unelectable and ousted from office for having an affair or engaging in some other illicit behavior. Remember, President Clinton's "marital wrongdoing"?
Today, all politicians have to do is dodge their bad behavior, lie about or minimize their culpability, or say they're in counseling to carry on in office. "Everybody does it," right?
In the 2022 PR poll I mentioned earlier, nearly 9 out of 10 Americans today said morality is important to them in their leaders, but at the same time, only a few people prefer a moral candidate to an effective one.
The poll asked Americans: "Would You Prefer a Candidate Who Is More Moral but Less Effective?"
- 26% More moral
- 19% More effective
- 40% Neither
- 15% Don't know
For better or worse, and I believe it's the latter, the truth today is this: What is valued most is voting for a politician who is effective, not morally upstanding.
But maybe the latter should be the basis for the former, like it used to be in days long ago. It's not about politicians being perfect, but of good moral standing. At very least, couldn't we figure out more ways to hold those politicians with "large indiscretions" in their past to a greater accountability in the future, rather than just throw our hands up in moral defeat?
Consider what a few of America's founders said about the moral conduct of elected officials. I believe we should say the same. If we don't, quite frankly, we contribute to the demise of the country they established.
Samuel Adams, organizer of the Boston Tea Party and signer the U.S. Declaration of Independence, wrote, "Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men."
William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, noted, "Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good and the government cannot be bad. … But if men be bad, let the government be never so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn."
Noah Webster, strong advocate of the Constitutional Convention who was also known as the "Father of American Scholarship and Education," advised, "In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate - look to his character. … When a citizen gives his suffrage to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country."
William Paterson, a signer of the U.S. Constitution, associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, and second governor of New Jersey, wrote, "When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan" (based on Proverbs 29:2).
John Jay, the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (appointed by George Washington) and second governor of New York, wrote, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." (For more founders' thoughts on political morality, see the work of historian David Barton at WallBuilders.com.)
Their words bring me back again to the words of the most famous American and leader of our republic, George Washington, who by no means was perfect but scholars say a man of moral repute and more-deeply devoted (Anglican) Christian than most know.
Washington worried about the future of his new nation as many of us do now. It was far-too-divided, with further potential of tearing at its constitutional seams. He was concerned that unbridled freedom, coupled with relative morality and expediency, would give way to an uncivilized society and the ultimate dissolution of our republic.
GovInfo.Gov rightly concluded: "In September 1796, worn out by burdens of the presidency and attacks of political foes, George Washington announced his decision not to seek a third term. With the assistance of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, Washington composed in a 'Farewell Address' his political testament to the nation … designed to inspire and guide future generations. …"
Washington culminated his address with these words:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the sup- position that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
The post Does the character of our political leaders matter anymore? appeared first on WND.
